Social media are sabotaging the researcher access to data mandated by EU laws

European disinformation researchers say the biggest tech platforms are systematically obstructing their work, despite explicit requirements in European law. Ars Technica reports this, citing WIRED.

The Romanian precedent

A telling case is that of Adriana Iamnitchi, who heads the computational social science group at Maastricht University. In the run-up to Romania's presidential election in November 2024, TikTok accounts that had for years posted clips about manicures and fashion suddenly began promoting a little-known politician, Călin Georgescu. His posts with harsh anti-immigrant and antisemitic rhetoric racked up 120 million views, and the candidate himself, who had previously polled below ten percent, unexpectedly won the first round with 23%.

On October 28, 2025, Iamnitchi's team applied for access to TikTok's API under the Digital Services Act (DSA) in order to find out how this content had been monetized. The application was rejected: the platform decided that the researchers had not proven their status, had not disclosed their commercial interests and had not met its security requirements. Two months later TikTok itself blocked more than 27,000 fake accounts promoting Georgescu — but the company was unable to say who was behind the network. The first round of the election was annulled.

Not the law, but its enforcement

According to the researchers, the problem lies not with the DSA itself but with how the platforms interpret it. The application forms require, for example, that data be stored on a machine physically disconnected from the internet — a resource most universities simply do not have. Even the data that is obtained often cannot be reproduced, which undermines the basic principle of scientific verifiability.

Statistics from the DSA40 Collaboratory initiative, which is tracking 46 applications, show a wide spread: TikTok approved 11 of 13 requests, whereas X rejected 11 of 23. Companies have shut down their former public tools, such as Meta's CrowdTangle, and X has gone so far as to hide its API behind a paid subscription costing hundreds of dollars a month. Without full access, the scholars warn, the “black holes” in our understanding of how recommendation algorithms work will only grow.

Through the courts and fines

The organization Democracy Reporting International has twice taken X to court over access denials — and won both times, though in the Hungarian case the proceedings nearly collapsed over a dispute about jurisdiction. In December 2025 the European Commission imposed its first DSA fine on X — 120 million euros, in part for erecting “excessive barriers” for researchers. X filed an appeal, but then agreed to a remediation plan: free access to data, expedited review of applications and the lifting of restrictions on scraping. It was given six months to comply.

Observers call this a step in the right direction, but remain skeptical about actual implementation. Meanwhile, the EU has begun developing a unified standard for verifying researchers, and new rules on access to non-public data could force platforms to disclose full lists of followers — the key to mapping coordinated campaigns.

Source: Ars Technica